It's Not Sexism If It's Based on Statistics, Right?

Yes, 96% of those prosecuted for child abuse are men. So "naturally" it totally makes sense to refuse to hire men for any position involving children, right? I mean, except in positions of administrative authority where they would be removed from actual contact with the kids. How could that send a message? I mean, it just makes sense, right? Nor will we ever wonder if that 96% statistic is perhaps influenced by what messages we send about male and female behavior and what does and doesn't constitute abuse.

I am amused (in the sense of not at all amused) that many people in the wide world described in the article, who were no doubt offended by the Boyscouts proposal to exclude gay adults on the grounds that it equated being gay with being pedophiles. are quite happy to treat all men (regardless of sexual orientation) as pedophiles when it comes to taking care of their own kids.

For the record, I and my brothers (and just about every other teenage boy in my synagogue growing up) babysat. I thought nothing of it until I went to college. In my Women's Studies 201 class, the professor asked who in the class ever babysat. I raised my hand. Every woman in the class raised her hand.

No other guy in the class raised his hand.

I was stunned. Of course, so were they.

Aaron babysits fairly regularly. It pisses me off no end that this would not only shock and amaze people, they would regard it as deeply suspicious.